jmog;1221361 wrote:You think I wrote the requirements for these classes? I just had to take them and I am relaying what was covered in them.

Gosh a ruddies lets take a look at what you wrote.

jmog wrote: The course covers art history, literary history, and the major beliefs of the 3 major religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam).

In terms of adherents the religions I listed all have many more adherents than Judaism.
Gosh close to a billion Hindus, half a billion Buddhists, 18 million Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

jmog wrote: I also believe that the worlds major religions should be taught in high school in a social studies class. Just like it is in all public collages (and it is a requirement there to graduate).

And gosh here you are advocating that they be taught just like they are in the public “collages” Now that is rather ethnocentric of you.

jmog;1220754 wrote:Please tell me you aren't talking about the lightning experiments because that would be laughable.

Only laughable to a deeply committed young earth creationist. The point is, even if oneI says suchI experiments were flawedto which every creationist claims, ultimately, we know for certain that the basic building blocks of life can form from inorganic matter and discussing the various ways they may subsequently form a photocell are worthy of an empirical science class. On the contrary we have no evidence that organic matter can form due to the machinations of a supernatural intelligence and consequently any philosophical ruminations as to how that might work have no place in an empirical science class. I know you have said in the past you don't think intelligent design should be taught in biology but the plausible ways in which life may have naturally evolved from organic molecules that can form from inorganic matter absolutely should. And, any nonsense objections raised by proxies for the local youth pastor should be fiercely refuted.

BoatShoes;1221386 wrote:Only laughable to a deeply committed young earth creationist. The point is, even if oneI says suchI experiments were flawedto which every creationist claims, ultimately, we know for certain that the basic building blocks of life can form from inorganic matter and discussing the various ways they may subsequently form a photocell are worthy of an empirical science class. On the contrary we have no evidence that organic matter can form due to the machinations of a supernatural intelligence and consequently any philosophical ruminations as to how that might work have no place in an empirical science class. I know you have said in the past you don't think intelligent design should be taught in biology but the plausible ways in which life may have naturally evolved from organic molecules that can form from inorganic matter absolutely should. And, any nonsense objections raised by proxies for the local youth pastor should be fiercely refuted.

Laughable because they picked their own starting points (what they knew was the best case scenario for an atmosphere) and assumed that the "early earth" had such an atmosphere with no backing evidence to support it.

At that point they took known chemical reactions and simulated them (taking gaseous hydrocarbons and turning them into amino acids).

FYI, amino acids are still just molecules, they are NOT even close to "abiogenesis" which results in a single cell bacterium from non-life (or from animo acids).

Creating amino acids in a known chemical reaction just proves they knew their chemistry, it does not prove that a single cell could possibly be formed.

I have never claimed that creationism or intelligent design SHOULD be taught in a science class.

However, since it is neither measurable nor testible lightning in a bottle producing amino acids only should NOT be taught as a viable beginning to a single cell organism.

We have no evidence that this can happen, just like you mentioned no evidence that single cells can come from supernatural intelligence.

I still can't believe you brought up the lightning in a bottle experiments of 1952...that is classic.

FYI, even in our great knowledge and technology of today, our best scientists on the planet still don't know how and can not create a single cell from "non-life" material (even from amino acids and proteins).

isadore;1221369 wrote:Gosh a ruddies lets take a look at what you wrote.

In terms of adherents the religions I listed all have many more adherents than Judaism.
Gosh close to a billion Hindus, half a billion Buddhists, 18 million Jews.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups

And gosh here you are advocating that they be taught just like they are in the public “collages” Now that is rather ethnocentric of you.

1. I did not say the religions with the most adherents, I said 'major' which would be interpreted many ways, such as world influence.
2. Again, the course work is decided by the universities, not by jmog.
3. Yes, as a history or social studies class in HS the major religions of the world should be discussed. You can even include Buddhism, Hinduism, etc to make isadore happy. These should be strictly historical, not advocating one religion over the other.

jmog;1221454 wrote: FYI, even in our great knowledge and technology of today, our best scientists on the planet still don't know how and can not create a single cell from "non-life" material (even from amino acids and proteins).

At least they are trying. Still waiting for one shred of evidence that god exists; zero. Still waiting for a shred of evidence that Christianity(or any religion) is valid; zero.

If scientists one day do create life from nothing, you people will still bitch and moan about something. I'd love to see your research proving that god exists; this'll be great.

BoatShoes;1221386 wrote:Only laughable to a deeply committed young earth creationist. The point is, even if oneI says suchI experiments were flawedto which every creationist claims, ultimately, we know for certain that the basic building blocks of life can form from inorganic matter and discussing the various ways they may subsequently form a photocell are worthy of an empirical science class. On the contrary we have no evidence that organic matter can form due to the machinations of a supernatural intelligence and consequently any philosophical ruminations as to how that might work have no place in an empirical science class. I know you have said in the past you don't think intelligent design should be taught in biology but the plausible ways in which life may have naturally evolved from organic molecules that can form from inorganic matter absolutely should. And, any nonsense objections raised by proxies for the local youth pastor should be fiercely refuted.

As long as they mention the infinite improbability of a collection of amino acids randomly assembling themselves to form one protein molecule, and a collection of protein molecules randomly gathering to form one functioning cell, then yes, teach away. But don't act like such a scenario is settled scientific law- that kind of arrogance is what I have a problem with.

sleeper;1221476 wrote:At least they are trying. Still waiting for one shred of evidence that god exists; zero. Still waiting for a shred of evidence that Christianity(or any religion) is valid; zero.

If scientists one day do create life from nothing, you people will still bitch and moan about something. I'd love to see your research proving that god exists; this'll be great.

Nobody can prove God exists; likewise, none of you can prove God doesn't exist. But an intellectually honest person would have to claim either that A) the entire universe apppeared on its own out of nothing (and thus that any object at any time and place could appear self-caused out of nothing) or B) the universe has no beginning and existed in infinite past time or C) God exists and created the universe.

I'll take my chances with C).

sleeper;1221476 wrote:At least they are testing.

fify

If they cannot test it (and apply the scientific method) it does not belong in science class. (intelligent design) I will give jmog (and others) that in my experience science class does not focus enough on the lack of proof for abiogenesis.

jhay78;1221506 wrote: Nobody can prove God exists; likewise, none of you can prove God doesn't exist. But an intellectually honest person would have to claim either that A) the entire universe apppeared on its own out of nothing (and thus that any object at any time and place could appear self-caused out of nothing) or B) the universe has no beginning and existed in infinite past time or C) God exists and created the universe.

I'll take my chances with C).

#1: You still have a problem of who/what created god. If god has always existed, then might as well just say the universe always existed.
#2: Even if you can prove without a doubt god created everything, you still have to take the giant leap that YOUR god is the correct god. There's a thousand plus religions on the planet, all believing just as fiercely about their religion as you do. My guess is all but one is wrong(actually my guess is they are all wrong). Religion is nothing more than taking advantage of weak minded people to exploit their wealth and intellect for the cults own gain. How does it feel to be exploited?

FatHobbit;1221507 wrote:fify

If they cannot test it (and apply the scientific method) it does not belong in science class. (intelligent design) I will give jmog (and others) that in my experience science class does not focus enough on the lack of proof for abiogenesis.

Right. We should focus on the lack of proof of all religions; as in their is no proof and there never will be. Yeah, that'll fly with the ignorant minded parents who want their kids to be brainwashed into believing what they believe in. Great, wonderful, good job. :thumbdown:

I'd also like to add in response to jhay78. Only in the religious world is the lack of not being able to prove something doesn't exist a valid defense. We can also not prove that invisible unicorns do not exist, so does that mean they exist? Science, logic, and reason do not waste time on trying to prove something doesn't exist. Do you know how unfathomably stupid that sounds?

Faith is trash, lack of evidence disproving something is trash, you know, the kids know it, hell even the dog knows it. Call a spade a spade for once in your life; religion is fraud.

Here goes sleeper again on his dumb rants.

This is a thread about what should and should not be covered in a classroom.

With that respect so far we are all in agreement basically.

We, those who are Christians and non-Christians on this thread, and in pretty close agreement as to what should be covered.

You then come in and completely troll the thread and send it in a direction that was not even discussed at all previously.

jmog;1220084 wrote:Like just said you just eliminated abiogenesis from the classroom.

I also believe that the worlds major religions should be taught in high school in a social studies class. Just like it is in all public collages (and it is a requirement there to graduate).

No I didn't. There are experiments and tests that people conduct to attempt to prove/disprove what you're calling abiogenesis which is really a broad category as there's many theories related to it. And the theories change when we find them to be impossible or wrong or in relation to test results.

Religion does not share that characteristic.

I Wear Pants;1221533 wrote:No I didn't. There are experiments and tests that people conduct to attempt to prove/disprove what you're calling abiogenesis which is really a broad category as there's many theories related to it. And the theories change when we find them to be impossible or wrong or in relation to test results.

Religion does not share that characteristic.

I'm actually of the belief that abiogenesis is more of a philosophical subject than scientific, but I am not 'upset' about it being taught in science as long as it is taught as purely hypothetical and not fact (as it sometimes is).

They have ideas and they test them, but so far there has been ZERO evidence that living cells can come from non-living chemicals. Evidence was one of your criteria to be taught in a science class earlier, which is why I said that.

jmog;1221531 wrote:Here goes sleeper again on his dumb rants.

agreed

isadore;1220089 wrote:it is REQUIRED you take a course in the worlld's major religions in all public colleges and universities in Ohio? Is is required or is it one of the choices available to fulfil a requirement.

jmog;1221541 wrote:I'm actually of the belief that abiogenesis is more of a philosophical subject than scientific, but I am not 'upset' about it being taught in science as long as it is taught as purely hypothetical and not fact (as it sometimes is).

They have ideas and they test them, but so far there has been ZERO evidence that living cells can come from non-living chemicals. Evidence was one of your criteria to be taught in a science class earlier, which is why I said that.

Do you consider RNA to be alive?

I Wear Pants;1221547 wrote:Do you consider RNA to be alive?

The biological definition of life requires all or most of these, RNA does not...

Homeostasis-not really
organization-no
metabolism-no
growth-no
adaptation-possibly
response to stimuli-no
reproduction-yes

So no, RNA would not be considered life, even though it is a basic building block especially for viruses.

jmog;1221531 wrote:Here goes sleeper again on his dumb rants.

This is a thread about what should and should not be covered in a classroom.

With that respect so far we are all in agreement basically.

We, those who are Christians and non-Christians on this thread, and in pretty close agreement as to what should be covered.

You then come in and completely troll the thread and send it in a direction that was not even discussed at all previously.

When you can't beat the message, attack the messenger. It's only trolling because it debases your entire belief system in a few sentences. I don't know how it feels to have your entire belief system crippled by a random anonymous user on an internet forum with little effort, but I imagine its terrible.

My apologies for being the voice of reason in your otherwise illogical and baseless lifestyle.

I don't think we should teach abiogenesis in the classroom. I do think we should teach evolution in the classroom because evolution exists and is verifiable by evidence and the fossil record.

sleeper;1221598 wrote:When you can't beat the message, attack the messenger. It's only trolling because it debases your entire belief system in a few sentences. I don't know how it feels to have your entire belief system crippled by a random anonymous user on an internet forum with little effort, but I imagine its terrible.

My apologies for being the voice of reason in your otherwise illogical and baseless lifestyle.

In other words exactly what you do? You "attack the messenger" in nearly every 'debate' regarding religion. I was just stating that you went on a rant that had nothing to do with the thread topic, which was true.

jmog;1221610 wrote:In other words exactly what you do? You "attack the messenger" in nearly every 'debate' regarding religion. I was just stating that you went on a rant that had nothing to do with the thread topic, which was true.

Sorry but no. I can't help that your belief system is not based on evidence or logic. If you considering calling out your belief system "attacking the messenger", then I apologize. I cannot help that my logic is sound and my facts are accurate. In a debate, I prefer to leave the personal attacks out of it and focus solely on the side with the most facts. How does the other side feel?

sleeper;1221615 wrote:Sorry but no. I can't help that your belief system is not based on evidence or logic. If you considering calling out your belief system "attacking the messenger", then I apologize. I cannot help that my logic is sound and my facts are accurate. In a debate, I prefer to leave the personal attacks out of it and focus solely on the side with the most facts. How does the other side feel?

You seriously can't believe what you just typed, have you ever read one of your threads?

jmog;1221618 wrote:You seriously can't believe what you just typed, have you ever read one of your threads?

I don't believe in anything that can't be verified by a majority of evidence. Since I have read all my threads, I would say the evidence is on my side.

How's that faith working out for you?

I Wear Pants;1219858 wrote:Lol, that'd be interesting if that's what she meant (she meant Christianity) but either way it would be against the founders' wishes. We shouldn't be teaching any religion in schools (publicly funded ones). That's what churches are for.

Eh, since technically Deism itself has no definitive effect on humankind, I'm not sure I see it as a "religion," unless you define "religion" as any belief in anything other than that which is observable through the scientific method or through empirical observation.

Though we do already have classes that deal in unscientific realms, so I'm not sure why I'd have a problem with it, other than the fact that it might then be pointless to teach (as it changes nothing, really), but I'm not sure I'd see that as unconstitutional to theorize that some other living existence is a potential theory for the origin of life on this earth. It seems no more or less plausible than the Miller-Urey theory or the crystals theory (not that they're possible or observable, but that they were necessarily the cause of origin of life).

BoatShoes;1220273 wrote:No. There is evidence that organic life can naturally arise from inorganic matter.

No. There is evidence that organic matter can naturally arise from inorganic matter. Organic matter and life are not necessarily synonymous.

BoatShoes;1221386 wrote:Only laughable to a deeply committed young earth creationist.

Actually, I'm not a young earth creationist, but I agree that it is pretty weak.

BoatShoes;1221386 wrote:... ultimately, we know for certain that the basic building blocks of life can form from inorganic matter and discussing the various ways they may subsequently form a photocell are worthy of an empirical science class.

They're worthy of discussion, sure. Miller and Urey did something that was certainly fascinating, and definitely worthy of note, but I'd contend that one of the foundational principles of science is to only go as far as the data permits, and I do think that far too many people take this experiment further than the data permits.

BoatShoes;1221386 wrote:On the contrary we have no evidence that organic matter can form due to the machinations of a supernatural intelligence ...

You're defining the criteria, and then you're asking for something outside that criteria to be explained solely through that criteria. That's a flawed assumption.

If science measures the natural world, the why would anyone think that something "supernatural" ... something that is, by definition, outside the realm of the natural world ... could be explained by a discipline that is limited to only the natural world? That's silly.

BoatShoes;1221386 wrote:... and consequently any philosophical ruminations as to how that might work have no place in an empirical science class.

No disagreement here.

BoatShoes;1221386 wrote:I know you have said in the past you don't think intelligent design should be taught in biology but the plausible ways in which life may have naturally evolved from organic molecules that can form from inorganic matter absolutely should.

As possibilities, sure, but if we have no reason to call any given one of them "probable" or "likely," it would be disingenuous for a teacher to do so. We have "how it could have happened" theories, and they should be discussed as such: not as the only options (unless one thinks we should stop looking for alternatives, scientific or otherwise), or even as the probable options, as we have no scientific data that makes any one of them more likely than the next.

BoatShoes;1221386 wrote:And, any nonsense objections raised by proxies for the local youth pastor should be fiercely refuted.

I honestly don't know what is intended here, but the "proxies for the local youth pastor" sounds a bit like an ad hominem. I might be wrong, though, if I misunderstood the intent.

sleeper;1221603 wrote:I don't think we should teach abiogenesis in the classroom. I do think we should teach evolution in the classroom because evolution exists and is verifiable by evidence and the fossil record.

I'm cool with this.

sleeper;1221629 wrote:I don't believe in anything that can't be verified by a majority of evidence.

Given that your view of evidence is limited to that which would be impotent in studying the non-physical, it's a self-fulfilled prophecy that you only believe in the natural world.

sleeper;1221629 wrote:Since I have read all my threads, I would say the evidence is on my side.

The evidence you accept, yes.

sleeper;1221629 wrote:How's that faith working out for you?

I can't speak for jmog, but mine's working out well. Thanks!

sleeper;1221629 wrote:I don't believe in anything that can't be verified by a majority of evidence. Since I have read all my threads, I would say the evidence is on my side.

How's that faith working out for you?

I wonder if Sleeper stays in his house 24/7, since he does not have 100% evidence and proof that he will not be steamrolled by a tractor trailer when he walks outside his front door.

jhay78;1221699 wrote:I wonder if Sleeper stays in his house 24/7, since he does not have 100% evidence and proof that he will not be steamrolled by a tractor trailer when he walks outside his front door.

Quantum mechanics: fixed probabilities. Problem solved!